If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois?
"JOHN" wrote in message ... http://www.vaproject.org:80/ayoub/wh...v-20070305.htm What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois? Prairie Collaborative for Immunization Safety, an Illinois not-for-profit organization David Ayoub, MD, Director and Founder Karen McDonough, Director Teresa Conrick, Director Christina Blakey, Director Springfield, Illinois (217) 691-3298 Summary: 1) Cervical cancer in Illinois is responsible for only about 200 annual deaths and rates have steadily declined. Nearly all cancers are preventable with a simple Pap test at a fraction of the cost of the vaccine. Tell that to the families of the deceased. 2) The HPV vaccine is a unique type of vaccine with no prior clinical experience. The potential for benefit is not nearly as great as the potential for widespread harm if mandated for thousands of children. Wrong. The vaccine has been through appropirate clinical trials. Yeah, harm. Like lost income to oncologists. 3) Merck has funded most HPV vaccine clinical trials and the majority authorship of published papers suggests considerable potential for extensive reporting bias. Over 40% of study co-authors are Merck employees and 81% had received money from Merck. And all the revelent trials were reviewed by the FDA before being licensed. 4) Since cancer requires years to develop the effectiveness if the vaccine is totally hypothetical. Even a Merck executive has recently admitted that vaccine efficacy in women under 15 years is unknown. 5) The HPV vaccine suffers a significant adverse reaction rate (90%) as reported in published trials and also in VAERS. There are no long-term safety studies yet over 500 reports of vaccine failures or adverse reactions have already been reported to the FDA. Gardasil contains a large quantity of a neurotoxin, aluminum at doses that are known to cause neurological damage in animals. Yeah, which is worse: A sore arm or dying from cancer? 6) Targeting 11 year-old girls is unadvisable, since few studies have assessed children this young. Over one-third of all adverse Gardasil vaccine reactions recently reported to VAERS were in children 16 years old or younger. What proportion of the participants were 16 or younger? 7) Since influenza kills ten-times as many individuals as cervical cancer yet flu vaccination is not mandated, HPV mandates can't be just about "saving more lives". Who ever said saving more lives was the only reason for the HPV vaccine? Preventing cancer is a reason, too. 8) Even the CDC has recently stated that HPV vaccine should NOT be mandated. Reference, please. Why did they say that? Have a lovely day. Jeff |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois?
On Mar 11, 10:38�pm, "Jeff" wrote:
"JOHN" wrote in message ... http://www.vaproject.org:80/ayoub/wh...v-20070305.htm What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois? Prairie Collaborative for Immunization Safety, an Illinois not-for-profit organization David Ayoub, MD, Director and Founder Karen McDonough, Director Teresa Conrick, Director Christina Blakey, Director Springfield, Illinois (217) 691-3298 I think the real issue here is the "mandation" aspect. Summary: 1) *Cervical cancer in Illinois is responsible for only about 200 annual deaths and rates have steadily declined. *Nearly all cancers are preventable with a simple Pap test at a fraction of the cost of the vaccine. Tell that to the families of the deceased. What percentage of cervical cancer is not directly correlated with HPV at all? Just wondering. If I'm not mistaken, I read in the study results that equal numbers of folks had developed precancerous cells regardless of whether they were in the group that received the vaccine or not. 2) *The HPV vaccine is a unique type of vaccine with no prior clinical experience. *The potential for benefit is not nearly as great as the potential for widespread harm if mandated for thousands of children. Wrong. The vaccine has been through appropirate clinical trials. What is an appropriate clinical trial exactly? Yeah, harm. Like lost income to oncologists. 3) *Merck has funded most HPV vaccine clinical trials and the majority authorship of published papers suggests considerable potential for extensive reporting bias. *Over 40% of study co-authors are Merck employees and 81% had received money from Merck. And all the revelent trials were reviewed by the FDA before being licensed. The same FDA that approved the Rotavirus vaccine AGAIN? 4) *Since cancer requires years to develop the effectiveness if the vaccine is totally hypothetical. *Even a Merck executive has recently admitted that vaccine efficacy in women under 15 years is unknown. 5) *The HPV vaccine suffers a significant adverse reaction rate (90%) as reported in published trials and also in VAERS. *There are no long-term safety studies yet over 500 reports of vaccine failures or adverse reactions have already been reported to the FDA. *Gardasil contains a large quantity of a neurotoxin, aluminum at doses that are known to cause neurological damage in animals. Yeah, which is worse: A sore arm or dying from cancer? You must be able to differentiate between a cancer vaccine and an STD vaccine. Neurological damage is nothing to sneeze at. 6) *Targeting 11 year-old girls is unadvisable, since few studies have assessed children this young. *Over one-third of all adverse Gardasil vaccine reactions recently reported to VAERS were in children 16 years old or younger. What proportion of the participants were 16 or younger? The study didn't specify how many from each group were participants that I could find. Also, contracting HPV is a numbers game highly dependent upon lifestyles, social status, sexual habits, etc. There is no way to predict which girls would have come into contact with HPV in a natural setting. Did they introduce the virus manually/on purpose to ensure a really adequate and unskewed study? If so, I can't help but question just who on earth gave parental consent to allowing that in a minor. 7) *Since influenza kills ten-times as many individuals as cervical cancer yet flu vaccination is not mandated, HPV mandates can't be just about "saving more lives". Who ever said saving more lives was the only reason for the HPV vaccine? Preventing cancer is a reason, too. 8) *Even the CDC has recently stated that HPV vaccine should NOT be mandated. Reference, please. Why did they say that? Have a lovely day. Jeff- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois?
"Chris" wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 11, 10:38�pm, "Jeff" wrote: "JOHN" wrote in message ... http://www.vaproject.org:80/ayoub/wh...v-20070305.htm What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois? Prairie Collaborative for Immunization Safety, an Illinois not-for-profit organization David Ayoub, MD, Director and Founder Karen McDonough, Director Teresa Conrick, Director Christina Blakey, Director Springfield, Illinois (217) 691-3298 I think the real issue here is the "mandation" aspect. Jeff says: There are two major issues: 1) The vaccine is mandatory in some areas. People don't like to be told what to do. In Texas, people have the right to opt out for religious and philosophical reasons. Most other states allow religious and/or philosophical exemptions. So, for the most part, the law just requires parents to make a decision. 2) A lot of people feel that the vaccine is a like a go-ahead for kids to have sex. Summary: 1) �Cervical cancer in Illinois is responsible for only about 200 annual deaths and rates have steadily declined. �Nearly all cancers are preventable with a simple Pap test at a fraction of the cost of the vaccine. Tell that to the families of the deceased. What percentage of cervical cancer is not directly correlated with HPV at all? Just wondering. If I'm not mistaken, I read in the study results that equal numbers of folks had developed precancerous cells regardless of whether they were in the group that received the vaccine or not. Jeff: Don't know the exact number. You have the internet, so please feel free to find out yourself. 2) �The HPV vaccine is a unique type of vaccine with no prior clinical experience. �The potential for benefit is not nearly as great as the potential for widespread harm if mandated for thousands of children. Wrong. The vaccine has been through appropirate clinical trials. What is an appropriate clinical trial exactly? Jeff: The best clinical study is one that shows a decrease in the rates of cancer. However, because the lesions lead to cancer and the lesions are a result of infection, a decrease in infection is a good start. Of course, the CDC and Merck are following up the rates of cancer. But this will take years. Yeah, harm. Like lost income to oncologists. 3) �Merck has funded most HPV vaccine clinical trials and the majority authorship of published papers suggests considerable potential for extensive reporting bias. �Over 40% of study co-authors are Merck employees and 81% had received money from Merck. And all the revelent trials were reviewed by the FDA before being licensed. The same FDA that approved the Rotavirus vaccine AGAIN? Jeff: There is only one FDA. However, the first rotavirus vaccine did not raise the rates of intussusception. They are watching the rates intussusception with the second one, as well. The first one was pulled from the market after a possible correlation between rotavirus vaccine and intussusception was found. However, it was later determined that there wasn't an increase. However, the liability issues made too expensive for Merck to keep making the vaccine. Unfortunately, juries usually rule in favor of sick kids, regardless of the evidence. 4) �Since cancer requires years to develop the effectiveness if the vaccine is totally hypothetical. �Even a Merck executive has recently admitted that vaccine efficacy in women under 15 years is unknown. 5) �The HPV vaccine suffers a significant adverse reaction rate (90%) as reported in published trials and also in VAERS. �There are no long-term safety studies yet over 500 reports of vaccine failures or adverse reactions have already been reported to the FDA. �Gardasil contains a large quantity of a neurotoxin, aluminum at doses that are known to cause neurological damage in animals. Yeah, which is worse: A sore arm or dying from cancer? You must be able to differentiate between a cancer vaccine and an STD vaccine. Neurological damage is nothing to sneeze at. Jeff: It is a vaccine that does both. So is the hepatitis B vaccine. 6) �Targeting 11 year-old girls is unadvisable, since few studies have assessed children this young. �Over one-third of all adverse Gardasil vaccine reactions recently reported to VAERS were in children 16 years old or younger. What proportion of the participants were 16 or younger? The study didn't specify how many from each group were participants that I could find. Also, contracting HPV is a numbers game highly dependent upon lifestyles, social status, sexual habits, etc. There is no way to predict which girls would have come into contact with HPV in a natural setting. Did they introduce the virus manually/on purpose to ensure a really adequate and unskewed study? If so, I can't help but question just who on earth gave parental consent to allowing that in a minor. Jeff: It is easy to figure who gave parental consent: The parents. No one else can give parental consent. The virus was introduced the same way it is introduced to people every day: via sexual contact. Girls and boys do this without parental knowledge all the time. 7) �Since influenza kills ten-times as many individuals as cervical cancer yet flu vaccination is not mandated, HPV mandates can't be just about "saving more lives". Who ever said saving more lives was the only reason for the HPV vaccine? Preventing cancer is a reason, too. 8) �Even the CDC has recently stated that HPV vaccine should NOT be mandated. Reference, please. Why did they say that? Have a lovely day. Jeff- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Jeff: I see you didn't back your claim about the CDC saying that the vaccine should not be mandated. Jeff |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois?
This is just in from the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...d=rr56e312a1_e It discusses the vaccine in some detail. Jeff |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois?
What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois?
Prairie Collaborative for Immunization Safety, an Illinois not-for-profit organization I think the real issue here is the "mandation" aspect. Jeff says: There are two major issues: 1) The vaccine is mandatory in some areas. People don't like to be told what to do. In Texas, people have the right to opt out for religious and philosophical reasons. Most other states allow religious and/or philosophical exemptions. So, for the most part, the law just requires parents to make a decision. 2) A lot of people feel that the vaccine is a like a go-ahead for kids to have sex. Nah, the opening line specifically asks what is wrong with the mandate. As for the law "just" requiring parents make a decision....sure, when looking at it from the side of the "law." lol. There aren't enough people questioning the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and I am not anti-vaccine by any means. I'm just pointing out that unless someone has heard of anything requiring them to really think about the issue, they don't think about it at all. Most people feel that vaccines are something they've had so it is just routine and expected, and they are most certainly told by school officials, physicians, county health officials, etc. that their children are REQUIRED to get this and that vaccine to be admitted into school. Most believe this and have no idea there are exemptions. Secondly, those who feel it will promote promiscuity are nuts, but it is their choice to live with blinders on. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if HPV alone, let alone any other STD, did not deter one from having sex, remaining vaccine-free OR receiving the vaccine will not deter them from it either. What percentage of cervical cancer is not directly correlated with HPV at all? Just wondering. If I'm not mistaken, I read in the study results that equal numbers of folks had developed precancerous cells regardless of whether they were in the group that received the vaccine or not. Jeff: Don't know the exact number. You have the internet, so please feel free to find out yourself. I have looked it up, Jeff. Not convincing enough for me to let my daughter be an early-term guinea pig for it. I have also pointed out that equal numbers of those receiving the vaccine in the study and those who did not receive the vaccine STILL developed precancerous lesions. What is an appropriate clinical trial exactly? Jeff: *The best clinical study is one that shows a decrease in the rates of cancer. However, because the lesions lead to cancer and the lesions are a result of infection, a decrease in infection is a good start. Of course, the CDC and Merck are following up the rates of cancer. But this will take years. I don't feel that in this be in the wrong spot at the right time to even contract HPV, let alone the numerous strains of HPV, indicates to anyone whether there has been a decrease in infection accurately. I also believe I've already pointed out that not all cervical cancer develops solely due to HPV infection. The same FDA that approved the Rotavirus vaccine AGAIN? Jeff: There is only one FDA. However, the first rotavirus vaccine did not raise the rates of intussusception. They are watching the rates intussusception with the second one, as well. The first one was pulled from the market after a possible correlation between rotavirus vaccine and intussusception was found. However, it was later determined that there wasn't an increase. However, the liability issues made too expensive for Merck to keep making the vaccine. Unfortunately, juries usually rule in favor of sick kids, regardless of the evidence. Of course there is only one FDA. It was a smart-aleck statement. I'll have to make an effort at finding this descrediting study on the first one then, especially if Merck claims to have halted the production merely because the liability was too costly for them. Rotavirus has just recently been questioned yet again and has even been termed as "not recommended" on many vaccine schedules listed on state websites. Children should be put first - any doubt = no go. You must be able to differentiate between a cancer vaccine and an STD vaccine. Neurological damage is nothing to sneeze at. Jeff: It is a vaccine that does both. So is the hepatitis B vaccine. I don't care if the hepatitis B vaccine first prevent hepatitis and secondly liver cancer. Again, liver cancer can develop in people who don't even have hepatitis. Secondly, the issue is with the mandation of what I am assuming is ANY vaccine for a general public of which the majority has no idea mandated does not literally mean mandated. What proportion of the participants were 16 or younger? The study didn't specify how many from each group were participants that I could find. Also, contracting HPV is a numbers game highly dependent upon lifestyles, social status, sexual habits, etc. There is no way to predict which girls would have come into contact with HPV in a natural setting. Did they introduce the virus manually/on purpose to ensure a really adequate and unskewed study? If so, I can't help but question just who on earth gave parental consent to allowing that in a minor. Jeff: It is easy to figure who gave parental consent: The parents. No one else can give parental consent. The virus was introduced the same way it is introduced to people every day: via sexual contact. Girls and boys do this without parental knowledge all the time. You missed what I was saying here. I questioned who would give parental consent for a clinician to introduce the virus, rather than taking a chance on acquiring it via the natural mode of transmission. Who ever said saving more lives was the only reason for the HPV vaccine? Preventing cancer is a reason, too. I have no issue with it being touted as an HPV vaccine. I do, however, take issue to them calling it a cervical cancer vaccine. If it were a cervical cancer vaccine, it would not only be limited to HPV. The proper way to tag it would be "a vaccine for human papillomavirus, which MAY lead to cervical cancer." Simple as that. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois?
On Mar 12, 1:43?pm, "Jeff" wrote:
This is just in from the CDC:http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...?s_cid=rr56e31... It discusses the vaccine in some detail. Jeff You are right, it does. I hadn't seen some of this information detailed the way it is here. Considering the number of deaths in a limited study, I would have questions prior to giving consent to inject my daughter with it most certainly. Also, out of 12,157 women ages 16-26 years of age: A proportionately higher number of women had reactions from the vaccine than those who received the aluminum-containing placebo, which in turn is higher than those who received the saline-containing placebo. So while keeping in mind there is no differentiation between which placebo the deceased had received.... 10 from the vax group died during the trial 7 from the placebo group died during the trial 2 from the vax group died within 15 days following vaccination 1 from the placebo group died within 15 days following vaccination 4 died from motor vehicle accidents within the vax group 3 died from MVAs within the placebo group 1 from the vax group OD'd 1 from the placebo group OD'd 1 from the vax group died from pulmonary embolus 1 from the placebo group died from pulmonary embolus 2 from the vax group died from sepsis due to cancer and arrhythmia 0 from the placebo group 1 died from asphyxia from the placebo group People developing new conditions within 4 years following vaccination: 9 people receiving the vac developed autoimmune disorders, including various arthritis. Arthritis- 9 from the vax group and 2 from the placebo group. The last person reportedly developed systemic lupus erythematosis. 3 poeple receiving the placebo developed autoimmune disorders, including various arthritis. I am positive the results would differ with each and every selected group, depending upon which criteria is being used during the selection process. There are far too many factors involved pertaining to one's sexual practices, personal beliefs, self-esteem, class, etc. to mandate this vaccine. I want to see exactly how many of these people died INCLUDING the listed reasons WITHIN the period of the trial and WITHIN 15 days following vaccination, not just that 20 did. I will not accept "None of these deaths were considered to be vaccine related" for the 20 people who died during the trial and within 15 days following vaccination. I want an explanation as to each and every cause of death. Until I get information such as this, and until it is made readily available to the general public, not just those with internet acces, none of us can make a purely educated decision let alone one that may or may not be right for our families. Taken from your link: In the overall safety evaluation, 10 persons in the group that received quadrivalent HPV vaccine and seven persons in the placebo group died during the course of the trials. None of the deaths was considered to be vaccine related. Two deaths in the vaccine group and one death in the placebo group occurred within 15 days following vaccination. Seven deaths were attributed to motor-vehicle accidents (four in vaccine group and three in placebo group), three were caused by intentional overdose (nonstudy medications) or suicide (one in vaccine group and two in placebo group), two were attributed to pulmonary embolus or deep venous thrombosis (one each in vaccine and placebo group), two were attributed to sepsis, one case each attributed to cancer and arrhythmia (in vaccine group), and one case caused by asphyxia (placebo group). Information was collected on new medical conditions that occurred in up to 4 years of follow-up. Overall, nine (0.08%) participants in the vaccine group and three (0.03%) participants in the placebo group had conditions potentially indicative of autoimmune disorders, including various arthritis diagnoses (nine in vaccine group and two in placebo group) and systemic lupus erythematosis (none in vaccine group and one in placebo group) (111). No statistically significant differences exist between vaccine and placebo recipients for the incidence of these conditions. Syncope (i.e., vasovagal or vasodepressor reaction) can occur after vaccination, most commonly among adolescents and young adults (124). Among reports to VAERS for any vaccine that were coded as syncope during 1990--2004, a total of 35% of these episodes were reported among persons aged 10--18 years. Through January 2007, the second most common report to VAERS following receipt of HPV vaccine was syncope (CDC, unpublished data, 2007). Vaccine providers should consider observing patients for 15 minutes after they receive HPV vaccine. Safety of Vaccination: Postlicensure studies to evaluate general safety and pregnancy outcomes will be conducted by the manufacturer and independently by CDC. Monitoring will be accomplished through VAERS and CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink, which will include surveillance of cohorts of recently vaccinated females and evaluation of outcomes of pregnancy among those pregnant at the time of vaccination. The manufacturer will be monitoring long-term safety as part of the Nordic Cancer Registry Program (111 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois?
"Chris" wrote in message ups.com... What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois? Prairie Collaborative for Immunization Safety, an Illinois not-for-profit organization I think the real issue here is the "mandation" aspect. Jeff says: There are two major issues: 1) The vaccine is mandatory in some areas. People don't like to be told what to do. In Texas, people have the right to opt out for religious and philosophical reasons. Most other states allow religious and/or philosophical exemptions. So, for the most part, the law just requires parents to make a decision. 2) A lot of people feel that the vaccine is a like a go-ahead for kids to have sex. Nah, the opening line specifically asks what is wrong with the mandate. As for the law "just" requiring parents make a decision....sure, when looking at it from the side of the "law." lol. There aren't enough people questioning the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and I am not anti-vaccine by any means. I'm just pointing out that unless someone has heard of anything requiring them to really think about the issue, they don't think about it at all. Most people feel that vaccines are something they've had so it is just routine and expected, and they are most certainly told by school officials, physicians, county health officials, etc. that their children are REQUIRED to get this and that vaccine to be admitted into school. Most believe this and have no idea there are exemptions. Secondly, those who feel it will promote promiscuity are nuts, but it is their choice to live with blinders on. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if HPV alone, let alone any other STD, did not deter one from having sex, remaining vaccine-free OR receiving the vaccine will not deter them from it either. Jeff: (Sorry, but for some reason, my software doesn't indent your replies and put 's in front) I think the CDC and FDA do question the safety of the vaccines very carefully. Unfortunately, some of the people involved have ties to the drug industry, which does, at least, look like a potential conflict of interest. I think the CDC and FDA are scientifically rigorous when they do this. It is up to the parents to know what rights they have as far declining *any* medical treatments, including vaccines. What percentage of cervical cancer is not directly correlated with HPV at all? Just wondering. If I'm not mistaken, I read in the study results that equal numbers of folks had developed precancerous cells regardless of whether they were in the group that received the vaccine or not. Jeff: Don't know the exact number. You have the internet, so please feel free to find out yourself. I have looked it up, Jeff. Not convincing enough for me to let my daughter be an early-term guinea pig for it. I have also pointed out that equal numbers of those receiving the vaccine in the study and those who did not receive the vaccine STILL developed precancerous lesions. Jeff: Look at tables 3 and 4, he http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...d=rr56e312a1_e, from the CDC in Atlanta. What is an appropriate clinical trial exactly? Jeff: �The best clinical study is one that shows a decrease in the rates of cancer. However, because the lesions lead to cancer and the lesions are a result of infection, a decrease in infection is a good start. Of course, the CDC and Merck are following up the rates of cancer. But this will take years. I don't feel that in this be in the wrong spot at the right time to even contract HPV, let alone the numerous strains of HPV, indicates to anyone whether there has been a decrease in infection accurately. I also believe I've already pointed out that not all cervical cancer develops solely due to HPV infection. Jeff: Not all menigitis develops from bacteria. Are you suggesting that we should stop vaccinating against bacterial menigitis, when indicated? The same FDA that approved the Rotavirus vaccine AGAIN? Jeff: There is only one FDA. However, the first rotavirus vaccine did not raise the rates of intussusception. They are watching the rates intussusception with the second one, as well. The first one was pulled from the market after a possible correlation between rotavirus vaccine and intussusception was found. However, it was later determined that there wasn't an increase. However, the liability issues made too expensive for Merck to keep making the vaccine. Unfortunately, juries usually rule in favor of sick kids, regardless of the evidence. Of course there is only one FDA. It was a smart-aleck statement. I'll have to make an effort at finding this descrediting study on the first one then, especially if Merck claims to have halted the production merely because the liability was too costly for them. Rotavirus has just recently been questioned yet again and has even been termed as "not recommended" on many vaccine schedules listed on state websites. Children should be put first - any doubt = no go. Jeff: There is risk in doing nothing and risk in doing something. Life is full of risk. Studies show that there are some bacteria that get into the blood stream when having a poop. But, gee, I don't think I can stop doing that. So, I will have to live with risk. I believe the risk for all vaccines on the market for kids in the US are very safe, although not 100% safe. I think the risk from each of the vaccines is less than the danger of not getting them. You must be able to differentiate between a cancer vaccine and an STD vaccine. Neurological damage is nothing to sneeze at. Jeff: It is a vaccine that does both. So is the hepatitis B vaccine. I don't care if the hepatitis B vaccine first prevent hepatitis and secondly liver cancer. Again, liver cancer can develop in people who don't even have hepatitis. Secondly, the issue is with the mandation of what I am assuming is ANY vaccine for a general public of which the majority has no idea mandated does not literally mean mandated. Jeff: This, IMHO, is the stupiest arguement I have heard. It is like saying that lung cancer, asthma and heart disease develop in people who aren't around smoking and don't smoke, so we should let people smoke to their heart's content. Hepatitis B virus is a proven cause of liver cancer. Decreasing the rate of infection has prevented thousands of liver cancers. Just because there are other causes of liver cancer doesn't mean that you should go after one of the causes. I share your concerns about the public's understanding of what mandatory means (the public has even less understanding of the word "mandation," I can't even find it in the dictionary). However, it is their responsibility to understand their rights. I guess a corrollary of your arguement is that we shouldn't do things to save lives, because people don't understand their rights to opt out of life-saving measures. I guess if I ever run accross a burning building with kids trapped in, by your argument, I should ask the parents first before I run in and expose the kids to the risk of smoke in the living room. Jeff What proportion of the participants were 16 or younger? The study didn't specify how many from each group were participants that I could find. Also, contracting HPV is a numbers game highly dependent upon lifestyles, social status, sexual habits, etc. There is no way to predict which girls would have come into contact with HPV in a natural setting. Did they introduce the virus manually/on purpose to ensure a really adequate and unskewed study? If so, I can't help but question just who on earth gave parental consent to allowing that in a minor. Jeff: It is easy to figure who gave parental consent: The parents. No one else can give parental consent. The virus was introduced the same way it is introduced to people every day: via sexual contact. Girls and boys do this without parental knowledge all the time. You missed what I was saying here. I questioned who would give parental consent for a clinician to introduce the virus, rather than taking a chance on acquiring it via the natural mode of transmission. Who ever said saving more lives was the only reason for the HPV vaccine? Preventing cancer is a reason, too. I have no issue with it being touted as an HPV vaccine. I do, however, take issue to them calling it a cervical cancer vaccine. If it were a cervical cancer vaccine, it would not only be limited to HPV. The proper way to tag it would be "a vaccine for human papillomavirus, which MAY lead to cervical cancer." Simple as that. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois?
"Chris" wrote in message ups.com... ... I want to see exactly how many of these people died INCLUDING the listed reasons WITHIN the period of the trial and WITHIN 15 days following vaccination, not just that 20 did. I will not accept "None of these deaths were considered to be vaccine related" for the 20 people who died during the trial and within 15 days following vaccination. I want an explanation as to each and every cause of death. Until I get information such as this, and until it is made readily available to the general public, not just those with internet acces, none of us can make a purely educated decision let alone one that may or may not be right for our families. You can get the information from many public libaries. And most public libraries have internet access. ... Then don't vaccinate. Jeff |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois?
It is up to the parents to know what rights they have as far declining
*any* medical treatments, including vaccines. While they SHOULD know their rights, most do not. You can't be serious in implying that everyone should be aware there is even any concern? Many trusted professionals and officials tell them every day it is mandatory, simple as that, and not all states offer exemptions. I don't feel that in this be in the wrong spot at the right time to even contract HPV, let alone the numerous strains of HPV, indicates to anyone whether there has been a decrease in infection accurately. I also believe I've already pointed out that not all cervical cancer develops solely due to HPV infection. Jeff: Not all menigitis develops from bacteria. Are you suggesting that we should stop vaccinating against bacterial menigitis, when indicated? Key phrase here being "when indicated", and "when indicated," I would certainly hope so. Anyway, I am not going to get into a nitpicky argument on each and every vaccine, as I don't hold the same opinions of each and every one of them. The only thing I have suggested is that new vaccines not be deemed "mandatory" due to the perception of the word itself in the eyes of the general public. Of course there is only one FDA. It was a smart-aleck statement. I'll have to make an effort at finding this descrediting study on the first one then, especially if Merck claims to have halted the production merely because the liability was too costly for them. Rotavirus has just recently been questioned yet again and has even been termed as "not recommended" on many vaccine schedules listed on state websites. Children should be put first - any doubt = no go. Jeff: There is risk in doing nothing and risk in doing something. Life is full of risk. Studies show that there are some bacteria that get into the blood stream when having a poop. But, gee, I don't think I can stop doing that. So, I will have to live with risk. I believe the risk for all vaccines on the market for kids in the US are very safe, although not 100% safe. I think the risk from each of the vaccines is less than the danger of not getting them. That is your opinion and your choice to make for you and your family, and that is all that some of us ask - is to have it remain that way. The risks are not the same for everyone. I don't believe in sacrificing 1 to save 100. I don't care if the hepatitis B vaccine first prevent hepatitis and secondly liver cancer. Again, liver cancer can develop in people who don't even have hepatitis. Secondly, the issue is with the mandation of what I am assuming is ANY vaccine for a general public of which the majority has no idea mandated does not literally mean mandated. Jeff: This, IMHO, is the stupiest arguement I have heard. It is like saying that lung cancer, asthma and heart disease develop in people who aren't around smoking and don't smoke, so we should let people smoke to their heart's content. Hepatitis B virus is a proven cause of liver cancer. Decreasing the rate of infection has prevented thousands of liver cancers. Just because there are other causes of liver cancer doesn't mean that you should go after one of the causes. We should let people who CHOOSE for themselves to smoke to smoke until their heart's content. It is their choice to do so. Smoking contributes to all forms of cancer, not just lung cancer. Also, while hepatitis B may have reduced the incidences of liver cancer, it is possible that it has also increased the incidence of autoimmune disorders - painful, lifelong, debilitating ones. Who should decide whether dying from liver cancer in 4 months versus a lifelong crippling autoimmune disorder is preferential for me? Nobody but me. I can't name one person who even once worried about developing liver cancer, but I can name many who worry each and every year at that annual appointment what that Pap smear will find. More of an advantage for acceptance of the HPV vaccine over and above the hep B vaccine. My issue, that you seemed to miss, is that the HPV vaccine is literally being called "the cervical cancer vaccine". I can't even tell you how many people have shared with me that their doctor asked them if they wanted to give their child "the cervical cancer vaccine." This is wrong, deceitful and misleading. I have never once heard of anyone saying "Hey, I got the liver cancer vaccine today." or the "brain saving vaccine today." @@ Nope, they got the hepatitis B virus vaccine. I share your concerns about the public's understanding of what mandatory means (the public has even less understanding of the word "mandation," I can't even find it in the dictionary). However, it is their responsibility to understand their rights. That is what people get upset about. Most people don't even know what "rights" are over and above the basics covered in school until they encounter a problem and need a lawyer who then tells them "this is your right." Most people think that it is their right to have their children ride a schoolbus, and not the priviledge the transportation departments refer to it to. lol. Most people are only asking that the single and important right to decide for oneself is more respected than it is. I guess a corrollary of your arguement is that we shouldn't do things to save lives, because people don't understand their rights to opt out of life-saving measures. I guess if I ever run accross a burning building with kids trapped in, by your argument, I should ask the parents first before I run in and expose the kids to the risk of smoke in the living room. Now that is just being silly, but to go along with your analogy, the polite thing to do would be to ask whether the parents preferred the child die from smoke inhalation versus throwing them three stories onto the ground so they can spend the rest of their lives paralyzed. @@ I stated in my first post that I am not anti-vaccine. You can do whatever you want to save lives. We respect your right to decide participation is right for you, just as you should respect our right to decide that participation is wrong for us and becase trusted professionals and officials are misleading people every single day in reference to what 'mandatory" means, I am against the "mandation" of any vaccine. Most of teach our children to not do anything they aren't comfortable with. What proportion of the participants were 16 or younger? The study didn't specify how many from each group were participants that I could find. Also, contracting HPV is a numbers game highly dependent upon lifestyles, social status, sexual habits, etc. There is no way to predict which girls would have come into contact with HPV in a natural setting. Did they introduce the virus manually/on purpose to ensure a really adequate and unskewed study? If so, I can't help but question just who on earth gave parental consent to allowing that in a minor. Jeff: It is easy to figure who gave parental consent: The parents. No one else can give parental consent. The virus was introduced the same way it is introduced to people every day: via sexual contact. Girls and boys do this without parental knowledge all the time. You missed what I was saying here. I questioned who would give parental consent for a clinician to introduce the virus, rather than taking a chance on acquiring it via the natural mode of transmission. Who ever said saving more lives was the only reason for the HPV vaccine? Preventing cancer is a reason, too. I have no issue with it being touted as an HPV vaccine. I do, however, take issue to them calling it a cervical cancer vaccine. If it were a cervical cancer vaccine, it would not only be limited to HPV. The proper way to tag it would be "a vaccine for human papillomavirus, which MAY lead to cervical cancer." Simple as that.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois? | JOHN | General | 9 | March 13th 07 07:55 PM |
What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois? | JOHN | Pregnancy | 9 | March 13th 07 07:55 PM |
What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois? | JOHN | Kids Health | 9 | March 13th 07 07:55 PM |
Michigan Kills HPV Vaccine Mandate | john | General | 0 | January 10th 07 09:10 AM |
Michigan Kills HPV Vaccine Mandate | john | Pregnancy | 0 | January 10th 07 09:10 AM |